Mr SLIPPER (1:06 PM) —The shadow minister was somewhat inconsistent in what he said. Initially, he claimed that members of the coalition are paranoid about the integrity of the electoral roll, and then he went on to suggest that we were not interested in the electoral roll but we were interested in disenfranchising certain people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr Melham interjecting—

Mr SLIPPER —I am pleased that you agree that you have been inconsistent. The government will not apologise for these amendments. We believe that they are appropriate and we have introduced them to the parliament only after due consideration. There is no suggestion that this is legislation on the run. Much of this legislation emanates from the report into the 1996 poll and there has been consideration of the items to be included. The government has been very careful to ensure that the bill includes provisions which continue to improve the integrity of the electoral system.

I for one do not really believe it is a crime to be paranoid about the integrity of the electoral system. Each and every one of us in this place should be paranoid about making sure that only those people entitled to be on the roll are on the roll. So we are determined to pursue in an ongoing way the integrity of the electoral roll, and the amendments currently before the chamber help this process.

There is no deliberate intention on the part of the government to remove the itinerant elector status. The AEC has advised that, while the proposed amendments would appear to severely limit an elector's ability to claim itinerant status in the application of the current provisions, the AEC has based the determination of eligibility not solely on the length of residency at a particular address but on whether that address is considered to be a permanent address of the elector—that is, one to which the elector has a fixed intention of returning to live on a permanent basis rather than just a temporary abode for a fixed period of time. The AEC advises that it will continue to adopt this approach in considering applications if the proposed amendments are passed into law.

Current provisions provide for a one-month qualifying period before a person can enrol in a new division and then a 21-day period by which time a person is required to have notified a change of address. However, if a person changes address within the same division, he or she only has the 21-day period in which to notify that change. As many electors are unaware of divisional boundaries, this requirement is unnecessarily confusing and the amendments we are making here aim to reduce confusion for electors.

Amendments negatived.